“the overuse of antibiotics, whether in human patients or in livestock, results in bacteria adapting to the drugs, leading them to become less effective over time. If the pace of resistance isn’t halted — whether through more judicious use of the drugs or through the development of new classes of antibiotics — it will likely lead to soaring deaths from common infections and surgical complications, sending us back to a world where a minor cut could potentially once again be lethal.
We can avoid this fate, but it will require coordinating a global response before it’s too late.”
“Amid nationwide labor shortages in critical industries, more than a million immigrants are waiting on the US government to issue them work permits. Without these permits, many could lose their jobs, and some already have.
Biraj Nepal, a Nepali asylum seeker living in Woodland, California, has been working as a software engineer in the IT department of a bank for the last four years. Nepal went on unpaid administrative leave starting on January 26 because his work permit expired and the government has yet to process his renewal application. That has left his employer in a lurch: There’s long been a shortage of IT workers, and the pandemic accelerated that trend as companies went remote. Now, nearly a third of IT executives say that the search for qualified employees has gotten “significantly harder.”
If Nepal isn’t issued a new work permit within 90 days of taking administrative leave, his company will, by law, no longer be able to hold his job for him and will likely look for a contractor to fill his role. Under normal circumstances, that wouldn’t be a concern; work permits are meant to be issued quickly so that immigrants can be self-sufficient even while they are waiting on other applications for visas and green cards, which can take months or years to process. But the backlog at US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has reached crisis level.”
…
“The pandemic is partly to blame. Monthslong USCIS office closures and staff shortages have created a backlog of more than 8 million applications across all types of immigration benefits — including green cards, visas, and protection from deportation — and most work permit applicants have to be photographed and fingerprinted in person. USCIS was also plagued by a budget crisis under the Trump administration, and work permit applications spiked last fiscal year to an all-time high of 2.6 million, straining the agency’s capacity.
Under President Joe Biden, USCIS has taken some measures to combat the problem, though has stopped short of automatically extending the validity period of expired work permits as advocates have requested. It temporarily waived fingerprinting requirements for some applicants, exempted spouses of certain visa holders from having to apply separately for work authorization, and extended the validity period of newly issued work permits from one to two years for some immigrants who have been admitted to the US on humanitarian grounds. It has also hired new staff, including 200 people in the agency’s asylum division, to address the backlog. But it’s not clear why the agency hasn’t also adopted the extension policy that activists have called for.
Earlier this month, a federal court vacated two Trump-era rules that had restricted access to work permits for asylum seekers, meaning that their applications could be processed more quickly going forward.
“Agency personnel is addressing outstanding processing issues and making changes to underlying procedures to achieve new efficiencies while ensuring the integrity and security of the immigration system. This includes improving processing times and decreasing pending cases,” said Matthew Bourke, a USCIS spokesperson.
But the backlog remains too large to be solved quickly by USCIS’s new policies or the court decisions. That would require additional regulatory action: In addition to extending the validity of expired work permits, the government could also streamline the application form for work permits to speed up processing, Cruz said. That could help immigrants who can’t afford to wait much longer for their applications to be approved.”
https://www.yahoo.com/news/invasion-jolts-russias-friends-tiny-095941132.html
https://www.vox.com/recode/22937555/spacex-moon-space-junk
“Congress’s dependence on CRs is due to lawmakers’ inability to agree on full-year appropriations bills.
Congress’s actual deadline for passing appropriations legislation is at the end of September each year. Because bills from the previous year expire at that time, lawmakers need to approve a new set of 12 appropriations bills to fund federal agencies and make sure the government doesn’t run out of money. (If the government runs out of money and shuts down, agencies are forced to furlough employees and reduce their services.)
Had these bills passed on time, all spending would have been approved last fall. Instead, because Democrats and Republicans couldn’t come to an agreement, they passed a short-term spending bill that gave them a new deadline in December. When they couldn’t reach an agreement then, they passed another short-term spending bill that postponed the deadline to February 18. And because of ongoing conflicts, they’re planning to pass one more short-term spending bill to give them until mid-March.
Whether lawmakers procrastinate again is an open question.”
…
“Because Democrats control 50 Senate seats, but need 60 votes to pass the funding bills, members of the minority have leverage over what they’d like to see included.”
“On recent earnings calls, massive corporations have posted huge profits and promised continued price increases, even as inflation continues to rise to rates not seen in decades.
For example, Starbucks celebrated a 31 percent increase in profits at the end of 2021 — but it still plans to hike prices this year, the New York Times reported earlier this month. Tyson Foods, the meat processing behemoth, raised its prices 19.6 percent overall, driving record stock prices for the company.
Inflation, meanwhile, hit a four-decade high in January, with the consumer price index increasing 7.5 percent over the past year, before seasonal adjustment. Although prices dropped in the energy sector for goods like gasoline and fuel oil, every other sector — including medical care, apparel, transportation, food, and shelter — saw increases, resulting in the largest overall 12-month increase since 1982.
Some of that’s to be expected: With Covid-19 still throwing kinks into the global supply chain, the challenge of getting goods and materials where they need to be translates into increased prices for both companies and consumers. Meanwhile, consumers have increased purchasing power due to wage increases and stimulus benefits like checks, child tax credits, and low interest rates — and at least in the US, they’ve proven willing to pay higher prices. At its core, those are the necessary ingredients for inflation — demand outstripping supply.
But some economists and politicians say that corporations are using inflation as an excuse to jack up prices beyond what’s necessary to account for their increased costs. More than just passing those costs onto consumers, they say, corporations are taking advantage of the unprecedented global economic circumstances to increase their profits, simply because they can.”
…
“there’s plenty of pushback, both political and economic, to this perspective. A survey of a number of leading economists by the Initiative on Global Markets at the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business showed that a majority of those surveyed — 67 percent — disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement, “A significant factor behind today’s higher US inflation is dominant corporations in uncompetitive markets taking advantage of their market power to raise prices in order to increase their profit margins.” Only 7 percent of those surveyed agreed or strongly agreed with the statement.”
…
“But critics of major corporate price increases aren’t arguing that the consolidation is the only force driving inflation; rather, that because these conglomerates hold so much of the market share, they are able to raise prices out of step with the actual price increases they’re incurring and passing on to consumers — essentially, that they’re using the current inflationary environment as an excuse to raise prices more than necessary because they don’t have competitors to drive them to keep prices down, in turn contributing to the problem of inflation.”
“The Court’s youngest justice drew a distinction between “pragmatists,” judges who “tend to favor broader judicial discretion,” and “formalists,” who “tend to seek constraints on judicial discretion” and “favor methods of constitutional interpretation that demand close adherence to the constitutional text, and to history and tradition.” She placed herself in the latter camp.
As a justice, however, Barrett has behaved as an unapologetic pragmatist. Along with the Court’s other Republican appointees, Barrett supports flexible legal doctrines that give her Court maximal discretion to veto federal regulations that a majority of the justices disagree with — especially regulations promoting public health or protecting the environment. And she’s joined her fellow Republican justices in imposing novel limits on the Voting Rights Act that appear nowhere in the law’s text.
The rhetoric of judicial restraint is potent, so it is understandable why Barrett wants to tap into that potency. Formalist rhetoric enables the justices to claim that they didn’t roll back voting rights or strike down a key prong of President Joe Biden’s efforts to promote vaccination because they prefer weaker voting laws and a flaccid public health system — they simply did what the law requires.
And Barrett is hardly the only justice to engage in such rhetoric. Justice Neil Gorsuch recently published an entire book claiming that judges should rely almost exclusively on the text of a statute or constitutional provision while interpreting it. Justice Clarence Thomas frequently calls for radical shifts in the law, claiming they are necessary to restore the “original understanding” of the Constitution. Even Justice Samuel Alito, the Court’s most partisan justice, recently attributed his new, entirely atextual limits on the Voting Rights Act to having taken “a fresh look at the statutory text.”
The problem with this rhetoric, in short, is that it bears no resemblance whatsoever to the current Supreme Court’s actual behavior.”
…
“Jackson involved Texas’s anti-abortion law SB 8, a law that effectively bans all abortions after six weeks, in violation of the fetal viability standard established in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). And SB 8 was, in Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s words, designed to “evade judicial scrutiny.”
Ordinarily, when someone wishes to challenge an unconstitutional state law in federal court, they are not allowed to sue the state directly. Rather, such a plaintiff must sue the state official charged with enforcing that unconstitutional law. But Texas tried to design SB 8 so that no state official would be empowered to enforce its anti-abortion provisions — and thus no one could be sued to block the law.
SB 8 relies on a bounty hunter system. Under SB 8, “any person” except for an employee of the state of Texas may bring a lawsuit against any abortion provider accused of performing an abortion after the sixth week of pregnancy. If an abortion provider loses such a suit, they must pay the plaintiff a bounty of at least $10,000 — and there is no upper limit on this bounty.
SB 8, in other words, terrorizes abortion providers by potentially subjecting them to hundreds or even thousands of lawsuits if they are suspected of violating SB 8’s terms.
As Chief Justice John Roberts explains in a dissenting opinion in Jackson, Texas did not actually succeed in writing a law that is not enforced by state officials — and is therefore immune from federal judicial review. Because “the mere threat of even unsuccessful suits brought under SB 8 chills constitutionally protected conduct,” Roberts wrote, “court clerks who issue citations and docket SB 8 cases are unavoidably enlisted in the scheme to enforce SB 8’s unconstitutional provisions, and thus are sufficiently ‘connect[ed]’ to such enforcement to be proper defendants.”
But the five most conservative justices, including Barrett, all backed Texas’s play. Barrett joined an opinion by Gorsuch that effectively immunized SB 8 from any federal lawsuit challenging Texas’s bounty hunter system. (Technically, Gorsuch’s opinion allowed suits to move forward against state health officials who play a minor role in enforcing the law, but their role in doing so is so small than a hypothetical court order against these officials would be basically useless.)
The implications of this decision are staggering. As Roberts writes in dissent, quoting from an 1809 Supreme Court opinion, “if the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery.” Jackson provides every state with a roadmap that it can use to neutralize virtually any constitutional right.
So what’s really going on here? Would Barrett really vote to uphold a state law subjecting all gun owners to SB 8-style lawsuits? That seems unlikely. Among other things, Barrett is an outspoken proponent of more expansive gun rights. And a majority of the justices appeared inclined to expand the scope of the Second Amendment significantly during a separate case that was argued last November.”
…
“Barrett’s pragmatic approach to the law, and that of her Republican colleagues, is also on display in their decisions weighing the Biden administration’s power to protect public health.
Recall that Barrett defined a pragmatic judge as one who tends “to favor broader judicial discretion,” and formalistic judges as those who “tend to seek constraints on judicial discretion.” Since joining the Court, Barrett has sought to maximize her own discretion to veto federal regulations, while eliminating longstanding constraints on judicial power. And she’s largely succeeded in these efforts because she has five colleagues who share the same goal.
Consider the Court’s recent decisions in National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Department of Labor (2022), which struck down the Biden administration’s rule requiring most workers to either be vaccinated against Covid-19 or be regularly tested for the disease, and Alabama Association of Realtors v. Department of Health and Human Services (2021), which struck down the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s eviction moratorium in areas with substantial levels of Covid transmission.
Both cases questioned the power of federal agencies to write binding national regulations under long-existing federal statutes empowering those agencies to do just that. Before former President Donald Trump started remaking the judiciary, the Court’s decisions governing such rules urged judges to be deferential to both the agencies themselves and to the Congress that delegated such power to an agency.”
…
“In NFIB and Alabama Association of Realtors, however, the Court walked away from this more restrained approach to judging — with Barrett joining the majority in both decisions. Both cases relied on the so-called “major questions doctrine,” a doctrine that was invented entirely by judges, and that has no basis in any statute or in the Constitution’s text.
This doctrine places vague limits on federal agencies’ power to issue regulations that are likely to have a significant impact. “We expect Congress to speak clearly when authorizing an agency to exercise powers of ‘vast economic and political significance,’” the Court stated in both the NFIB and the Alabama Association of Realtors cases.
The problem with this major questions doctrine is, as federal appellate Judge Jane Stranch wrote in a lower court opinion upholding the Biden administration’s vaccination rules, “the doctrine itself is hardly a model of clarity, and its precise contours—specifically, what constitutes a question concerning deep economic and political significance—remain undefined.” The Court also hasn’t explained just how “clearly” Congress must “speak” if it wishes to delegate important powers to a federal agency.
The major questions doctrine, in other words, is an invitation to pragmatic judging. The major questions doctrine maximizes judicial discretion because it is so vague, and thus permits judges to invoke it whenever they disagree with a federal regulation and wish to strike it down. After all, if no one can say for sure “what constitutes a question concerning deep economic and political significance,” then the ultimate answer to this question will rest with Barrett’s court.
The same can be said about the nondelegation doctrine, a similarly vague constraint on federal agencies advanced by Barrett’s five Republican colleagues. (The Court’s most recent majority opinion discussing this doctrine, Little Sisters v. Pennsylvania, was decided a few months before Barrett joined the Court in 2020. So there is still a little uncertainty regarding Barrett’s views on nondelegation.)
The nondelegation doctrine would scrap the deferential approach that the Court advocated in Mistretta. In Gorsuch’s words, nondelegation calls upon judges to strike down federal laws permitting agencies to regulate, unless those laws were “‘sufficiently definite and precise to enable Congress, the courts, and the public to ascertain’ whether Congress’s guidance has been followed.”
Thus, like the major questions doctrine, the nondelegation doctrine is so vague that it maximizes the discretion of judges to restrict federal agencies. It is a fundamentally pragmatic doctrine under Barrett’s distinction between pragmatic and formalistic judges.”
…
“In Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (2021), for example, the Court fabricated a bunch of new limits on the Voting Rights Act that appear nowhere in the law’s text — including a strong presumption that voting restrictions that were in place in 1982 are lawful, or a similar presumption favoring state laws purporting to prevent voter fraud. As Justice Elena Kagan wrote in dissent, Brnovich “mostly inhabits a law-free zone.””
…
“It would be one thing if this Supreme Court were honest about what it is doing. It could write explicitly pragmatic opinions — which emphasize the justices’ desire to reach results that a majority of them deem to be fair, and which admit openly that these results cannot be justified by any provision of the Constitution or any federal statute.
But the Court is not being honest about what it is doing. Rather than admitting that they are engaged in an unfettered, pragmatic approach to judging, the conservative justices continue to wrap themselves in the rhetoric of judicial formalism.”
“While the 2008 Games were marked by some of the worst air quality in Olympic history, China’s “war against pollution” has advanced so much since that Olympians this month could glimpse the previously smog-enshrouded mountains surrounding the city. Air pollution in the capital has decreased by 50 percent since the 2008 Olympics, which if maintained will lead to four years of additional life for the average Beijing resident.”
…
“Thousands of miles away in Delhi, air pollution has remained at pervasively high levels for the past few months. The Indian capital’s winter air pollution spike is coming to an end, but the annual cycle — driven by cooler air, cooking and heating fires, seasonal agricultural burning, and the Diwali festival — will persist without further action.
Winter in Delhi is accompanied by a pervasive smell of toxic smoke, by coughing and nausea indoors and outdoors, and by increased hospitalizations for respiratory and cardiac-related illnesses. This past November, Delhi even instituted a partial lockdown for non-Covid reasons, shutting down schools and construction for several days and imposing a work-from-home order for government employees in an effort to reduce air pollution. Throughout the winter into January, Delhi’s Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal tweeted the city’s bad air pollution levels every day, raising awareness about the issue.
Air pollution in Delhi comes from nearly every source possible: power plants, vehicle emissions, construction dust, agriculture, and the burning of coal for home cooking and heating. All of these activities create particulate matter — minuscule air pollution particles that contribute to cancer, lung and cardiovascular disease, and even cognitive decline.”
…
“Millions of deaths per year are attributed to air pollution, and it reduces average global life expectancy by 2.2 years. Air pollution is one of the most pressing public health problems in the world, and one of the most neglected, as Vox’s Dylan Matthews has written. Before the Covid-19 pandemic, poverty, malaria, pneumonia, and diarrheal disease deaths were on the decline, along with maternal and child mortality rates; air pollution, on the other hand, was getting worse in many places.”
…
“For decades, public health officials have known that bad air quality can increase the risk of conditions like heart disease, stroke, lower respiratory infections, lung cancer, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), dementia, mental illness, premature births, and more. But the true extent of the problem — such as the fact that air pollution can be worse for health than heavy smoking, for example — is only now becoming clear, as is the full extent of the threat.”
…
“Since the fuel sources that produce air pollution also provide necessities such as electricity, vehicles, factory-made goods, and heating, policymakers face tough decisions on how to deal with air pollution-related health concerns while not eroding well-being in other ways.”
https://www.vox.com/22968949/russia-sanctions-swift-economy-mcdonalds